Player Watch: Tanguy Ndombele

Cinemattis

Fully Functional Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
467
It’s funny how often those who are so sure of Tanguy’s horrible mentality never question Lamela’s, despite him having a significantly worse injury record than Ndombele through his 7 seasons at our club since 2013. Lamela has only played more Premier League minutes than Ndombele’s 1011 in 3 out of his 7 seasons at the club. He also was a record signing.
Lamela has had a bad, nightmarish injury record while at Spurs. But how does that say anything about his "mentality"? Especially when compared to Ndombele?

Some wil say that Lamela is not good enough, too egoistic, dribbles too much, is a stupid footballer - and others will argue the opposite.

But no-one can blame Lamela for being lazy or for not putting a shift in when played. Both are technically gifted players, but (so far) Ndombele hasn´t shown anything remotely close to Lamela´s work effort on the pitch. Mourinho loves Lamela for his attitude, an example of this just before the break in the season when EL reported himself available for the squad even with injury problems. And over the years the other players in the squad have in numerous interviews and videos from the club when asked who´s the one player who hates to lose/loves to win the most almost always named Lamela.

Lamela has a horrible injury record, but a brilliant mentality.
TN does not have a horrible injury record. But he has had many minor injuries - injuries that just as often comes as a result of poor fitness in such a high performance environemnt as the PL. Apparrently though, Ndombele has a - if not "horrible" - mentality that leaves one think that there is some room for improvement.
 

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
15,636
Lamela has had a bad, nightmarish injury record while at Spurs. But how does that say anything about his "mentality"? Especially when compared to Ndombele?

Some wil say that Lamela is not good enough, too egoistic, dribbles too much, is a stupid footballer - and others will argue the opposite.

But no-one can blame Lamela for being lazy or for not putting a shift in when played. Both are technically gifted players, but (so far) Ndombele hasn´t shown anything remotely close to Lamela´s work effort on the pitch. Mourinho loves Lamela for his attitude, an example of this just before the break in the season when EL reported himself available for the squad even with injury problems. And over the years the other players in the squad have in numerous interviews and videos from the club when asked who´s the one player who hates to lose/loves to win the most almost always named Lamela.

Lamela has a horrible injury record, but a brilliant mentality.
TN does not have a horrible injury record. But he has had many minor injuries - injuries that just as often comes as a result of poor fitness in such a high performance environemnt as the PL. Apparrently though, Ndombele has a - if not "horrible" - mentality that leaves one think that there is some room for improvement.
Quite. I’m not Lamela’s biggest fan, but if you crossed his attitude with Ndombele’s ability you would have one hell of a player.
 

emiley heskey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Messages
1,121
One of Marcelo Brozovic, Milan Skriniar and Lautaro Martinez could be sold in order to enable Inter to fund a big signing according to a report in today’s print edition of Italian daily newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport.

Chelsea’s N’Golo Kante is at the top of Inter manager Antonio Conte’s wishlist and Tottenham Hotspur’s Tanguy Ndombele is also included on his wishlist.

The report from the Milan based news outlet states that signing Ndombele would in fact be easier for two reasons. The first is that the Frenchman has failed to convince whilst in London and the second reason is that Spurs boss Jose Mourinho has declared an interest in signing Skriniar.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
9,178
One of Marcelo Brozovic, Milan Skriniar and Lautaro Martinez could be sold in order to enable Inter to fund a big signing according to a report in today’s print edition of Italian daily newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport.

Chelsea’s N’Golo Kante is at the top of Inter manager Antonio Conte’s wishlist and Tottenham Hotspur’s Tanguy Ndombele is also included on his wishlist.

The report from the Milan based news outlet states that signing Ndombele would in fact be easier for two reasons. The first is that the Frenchman has failed to convince whilst in London and the second reason is that Spurs boss Jose Mourinho has declared an interest in signing Skriniar.
We can only hope.

Whilst they say it'd be easier, I highly doubt we'll get the money back and Inter wpuld surely insist on a straight swap
 

sausage

Elongated Member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
4,617
Well there are still 20 clubs in the Prem. I don't think there has been an increase in the amount of players. So if spending has gone up, but the supply remains the same, then surely it's inflationary. Unless you think there is a noticeable difference in the amount of deals done, then I don't see why it's absurd.
You're blurring the definition of profit. If City go out and spend £200m this summer, it doesn't devalue the finances of other clubs.

At best, you're comparing some sort of intrinsic "replacement transfer value", but even that would then only tenuously apply to internal PL transfers.

We sold Chaldi for £6m more than we paid for him - that simple, basic transfer math alone is £6m profit (basic accounting math would be £13.68m profit because we'd already amortised his fee). "Profit on players" is irrelevant to whether or not £7m is still £7m in PL transfer inflation because we signed him from Twente, so even if we were talking about some sort of weird definition that involved replacing like-for-like and having money left over (which we aren't, and wouldn't, because that would be weird), it still wouldn't apply because he wasn't even bought based on PL fees.

In short, we have sold lots of players we didn't want at a profit in recent years - both in accounting terms, and in basic footballing terms.

I think that much has been evidenced without further off-topic discussion, as it's getting to the point where the relevance has been lost.
 

ikky

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
6,405
One of Marcelo Brozovic, Milan Skriniar and Lautaro Martinez could be sold in order to enable Inter to fund a big signing according to a report in today’s print edition of Italian daily newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport.

Chelsea’s N’Golo Kante is at the top of Inter manager Antonio Conte’s wishlist and Tottenham Hotspur’s Tanguy Ndombele is also included on his wishlist.

The report from the Milan based news outlet states that signing Ndombele would in fact be easier for two reasons. The first is that the Frenchman has failed to convince whilst in London and the second reason is that Spurs boss Jose Mourinho has declared an interest in signing Skriniar.
I’d take Marcelo Brozovic. Maybe some cash also due to age difference.
 

Neon_Knight_

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,442
Well there are still 20 clubs in the Prem. I don't think there has been an increase in the amount of players. So if spending has gone up, but the supply remains the same, then surely it's inflationary. Unless you think there is a noticeable difference in the amount of deals done, then I don't see why it's absurd.
The standard of the PL is constantly improving and it's becoming harder and harder for domestic players to make it. Teams in the relegation battle now have a starting XI of full internationals, most of which which they simply would not have signed in the past. There is definitely an element of inflation, but there is also a significant element of higher fees being spent on more valuable assets. Your high level outlook is a bit like suggesting a fleet of 1000 Italian super cars bought for £200m in 2016 compared to a fleet of 1000 family cars bought for £20m in 2010 evidences that the inflation of cars over a 6 year period was 1000%. It's not a direct comparison, so on accurate conclusion can be drawn on the rate of inflation, unless you compare like for like transactions (hard to do with athletes when their sport is constantly changing and evolving).

If the club makes a profit on transfers that exceeds the actual national rate of inflation, over a given period of time, that means the club has profits (in real terms) to spend on whatever it chooses. The average transfer fee could increase by 100% per year, but if the club sells a player for £10m more than they paid for them a year earlier, that's £10m that could be used to repay stadium debts, shareholders, invest in infrastructure etc. - even if it would incur a huge loss to replace that player like-for-like - the inflation of the transfer market only applies if the money is directly reinvested into that market.

If we think about it in the context of how the club is probably being run, with significant debts to pay off, constantly reinvesting in the playing squad, steadily increasing its revenue, and steadily increasing the value of the club (i.e. the business's assets) - round arbitrary figures used for simplicity:
If the club chooses to spend £100m on players and then sells them all for £150m 2 years later, while paying 5% APR on a loan that would otherwise have been repaid, that's a profit of £39.75m. If inflation was 3%, that's a profit of £37.4m in real terms.
The club has no obligation to spend that money on inflated transfer fees, but it does, both to maintain the revenue streams produced by the competitive team and as a safe investment of those funds.
If the club reinvests the full £150m on players straight away, perhaps they will be worth £200m the following year.
A new TV deal is negotiated by the PL / UEFA and now the revenue generated by the squad of players is increased by £100m per year, so there is even more financial incentive to maintain/improve the ability (and therefore value) of the playing staff. The chooses to invest 50% of this (£50m) on transfer fees, 20% on wages and the the other 30% on overpaying on loan repayments - bringing the squad value closer to £250m
After 10 years of this cycle, the squad could be worth £1b, instead of the £100m it was worth 10 years earlier (1000% increase in value). ENIC decides to sell the club for a huge profit, with the value of the playing squad being a significant factor in the sale price. The new owners have a squad worth £1b and ENIC walks away with the £1b cash. It does not matter whether those players eventually cost - the owners were able to walk away with the cold hard cash and can reinvest this on whatever they like (UK inflation is currently 2.7% - much less than the increase in PL transfer fees).

So please explain, how is our transfer policy not generating profits for our owners and shareholders?
 

joey55

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
9,317
You're blurring the definition of profit. If City go out and spend £200m this summer, it doesn't devalue the finances of other clubs.

At best, you're comparing some sort of intrinsic "replacement transfer value", but even that would then only tenuously apply to internal PL transfers.

We sold Chaldi for £6m more than we paid for him - that simple, basic transfer math alone is £6m profit (basic accounting math would be £13.68m profit because we'd already amortised his fee). "Profit on players" is irrelevant to whether or not £7m is still £7m in PL transfer inflation because we signed him from Twente, so even if we were talking about some sort of weird definition that involved replacing like-for-like and having money left over (which we aren't, and wouldn't, because that would be weird), it still wouldn't apply because he wasn't even bought based on PL fees.

In short, we have sold lots of players we didn't want at a profit in recent years - both in accounting terms, and in basic footballing terms.

I think that much has been evidenced without further off-topic discussion, as it's getting to the point where the relevance has been lost.
I'm not blurring anything. I thought I made it clear from the start, what I was saying, when I used the term "real terms". I'm pointing out that Levy isn't player trading for profit and that is especially true with senior players. Fee's go up over time, but that is due to the increase in general transfer market spending. If Levy was selling the players and then spending the money in different markets, that hadn't see such inflation, they'd have a point. But our spending shows we reinvest the money we get from transfers, back into the squad and therefore back into the transfer market. It's not like he sells Wimmer and they buys a house with the profits. He sells Wimmer etc and the money goes back into the transfer market.

I don't see what the big deal is. Football transfer prices go up at insane rates. Hence we paid 7 million for Chadli in 2013 and 26 million for Bergwijn in 2020.
 

joey55

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
9,317
So please explain, how is our transfer policy not generating profits for our owners and shareholders?
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying Levy isn't buying these players with the specific goal of making a profit on them. I'm not saying our transfer activity doesn't have the aim of increasing the value and profits of the club.
 

joey55

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
9,317
The standard of the PL is constantly improving and it's becoming harder and harder for domestic players to make it. Teams in the relegation battle now have a starting XI of full internationals, most of which which they simply would not have signed in the past. There is definitely an element of inflation, but there is also a significant element of higher fees being spent on more valuable assets. Your high level outlook is a bit like suggesting a fleet of 1000 Italian super cars bought for £200m in 2016 compared to a fleet of 1000 family cars bought for £20m in 2010 evidences that the inflation of cars over a 6 year period was 1000%. It's not a direct comparison, so on accurate conclusion can be drawn on the rate of inflation, unless you compare like for like transactions (hard to do with athletes when their sport is constantly changing and evolving).
I'm not sure that's true. If you look at the increase in spending between the leagues during the period of 2010 until now, the gaps are fairly consistently similar. The same is true with wage bills. But its also true with the leagues relative contributions to world cup players. in 2010, 2014 and 2018, the Prem provided 111, 105 and 108 players respectively, always 20-25 more than the next league. If you look at the FIFA ranking during those periods and see where the players from the top 10 nations play, the Prem also dominates consistently, but it doesn't seem to have more top players now than before. It's been the biggest spending league, compared to others for a long time and the relative difference is spending are about the same.

In 2010 the Prem spent 475 mill, Spain 305 and Italy 416. Last year it was 1908, 1503 and 1500. So I'm not sure the much evidence the Prem is now spending on more valuable assets.

I think the reality is you pay 11 mill for Wanyama in 2016 and now PEH, from the same club, in the same role, with the same amount of time on his contract, costs about 15-17 mill (depending on what the source it).
 

Neon_Knight_

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,442
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying Levy isn't buying these players with the specific goal of making a profit on them. I'm not saying our transfer activity doesn't have the aim of increasing the value and profits of the club.
Players sold for more than purchase prices = profits for club = transfer activity aims to make profits

The club is a business. If the aim of transfer activity is not profits, what is it?

I see no signs that we've invested in winning trophies - we don't spend enough on transfer fees or wages to imply that.

EDIT: So if we agree that the overall aim is profits for the club, surely the players are being purchased with the goal of making a profit on them - otherwise there is a serious disconnect between the club's business model and it's transactions / decision making processes.
 

Neon_Knight_

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
1,442
I'm not sure that's true. If you look at the increase in spending between the leagues during the period of 2010 until now, the gaps are fairly consistently similar. The same is true with wage bills. But its also true with the leagues relative contributions to world cup players. in 2010, 2014 and 2018, the Prem provided 111, 105 and 108 players respectively, always 20-25 more than the next league. If you look at the FIFA ranking during those periods and see where the players from the top 10 nations play, the Prem also dominates consistently, but it doesn't seem to have more top players now than before. It's been the biggest spending league, compared to others for a long time and the relative difference is spending are about the same.

In 2010 the Prem spent 475 mill, Spain 305 and Italy 416. Last year it was 1908, 1503 and 1500. So I'm not sure the much evidence the Prem is now spending on more valuable assets.

I think the reality is you pay 11 mill for Wanyama in 2016 and now PEH, from the same club, in the same role, with the same amount of time on his contract, costs about 15-17 mill (depending on what the source it).
How much have clubs in South America and Africa increased their spending on transfers in that period? The top leagues buy the best players from them, not just from each other.
 

Goobers

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
587
Think it's become clear why we faced such a little challenge from the other "big clubs" in signing him. I suspect PSG will come in for him now.
now that Conte is confirmedat Inter for another year there is another destination too. selling himself and Serge and one or two others could raise between 60-80 mill into the coffers and suddenly our window may seem a little different I guess.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
9,178
So Conte is the one driving the purchase of Ndombele? If so, it sounds like he's won the battle of getting/selling who he wants. Hopefully there is now a deal to be done for Ndombele and it looks like Skriniar will have to find a new club too.
 

Tucker

Q’plah
Joined
Jul 15, 2013
Messages
11,411
Can’t see Conte wanting Ndombele he’s a notoriously hard task master. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
 

joey55

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
9,317
Players sold for more than purchase prices = profits for club = transfer activity aims to make profits

The club is a business. If the aim of transfer activity is not profits, what is it?

I see no signs that we've invested in winning trophies - we don't spend enough on transfer fees or wages to imply that.

EDIT: So if we agree that the overall aim is profits for the club, surely the players are being purchased with the goal of making a profit on them - otherwise there is a serious disconnect between the club's business model and it's transactions / decision making processes.
I'm sorry this is just getting petty now. When making a simple (or what I thought to be simple) point I didn't expect to have to distinguish between the clubs overall goal of profits/growth and transfer dealings.

My point is simple, Levy doesn't buy players with the aim of profiting from them in terms of sales. What we make gets invested back into the squad and with the huge market inflation, what seems like a profit, in real terms isn't, as in terms of purchasing power, it's usually no greater than what we spent of the player a few seasons earlier. But the odd thing is and maybe I'm being unfair on you or over reacting, but I think you understand that and would largely agree with it. But for some reason, I get the impression you are just trying to pick holes in what I'm saying. I'm probably wrong, but that's how it seems.
 
Top